Category - ADI

Baby on Board Signs

Baby on Board SignI have my own views on these. They were originally intended to warn other drivers that there was a child in the car. In itself, that has value from a safety perspective.

The problem is that the instant you had more than one car with the same sign in the window, they started to have less impact.

That impact was reduced still further by “little princess” and “cheeky monkey” signs – and the myriad other variations.

You still see the occasional “baby an bord” sign – which has to be one of the most pointless ones, even though I think it may have been the original (the concept came over here from Europe).

These days, just about everyone who has kids has the damned things. And all you have to do is go anywhere near a school in the morning or afternoon to see the value these signs have as far as the people displaying them are concerned. Some of the most dangerous driving imaginable comes from people picking up or dropping off their kids from/to school.

So, based on my own personal experience, they are meaningless nowadays.

The Wirral Globe has an entertaining series of exchanges via letters to the editor. I won’t reproduce all of them – just the links. But here is the letter that sparked it all off:

IT IS no good. I feel an irresistible rant coming on and must write.

I’m a former driving instructor and know I speak for many motorists in expressing my irritation with those pathetic idiots who feel the need to inform us that they have a ‘baby on board.’

For Heaven’s sake, don’t they realise that no one on the planet has the smallest interest in their reproductive status?

Recently I have seen one car advertising not only ‘baby on board’ but also ‘child on board’ and even – wait for it – “little star on board”. Pass the sick-bag!

Another proud driver felt it necessary even to inform us of the names of his three little treasures (‘Aimee on board’ etc.) Yuck!

On a serious level there are several problems with this stupid, self-important and indeed potentially dangerous practice. For example:- 1. Annoying other road users unnecessarily is an infringement of the Highway Code.

2. Sticking a notice – or worse, two or three of them – on the rear window is an excellent way of obstructing the driver’s rear view.

3. In the unfortunate event of a motorway smash, it is surely unacceptable for emergency services to have to waste time, at possible risk to themselves, searching for a non-existent passenger – for, as we’ve all noticed, there very rarely even is a baby, child or (retch!) “little star” in the vehicle at all.

Is it not high time this practice was banned by law?

What do other readers think?

He really lit the blue touch paper with that! Here are the links to the subsequent replies – and remember that at the time of writing, the responses are still coming in:

As an aside, if you ever watch Dragon’s Den, just about every episode has someone on who got pregnant, had a kid, contracted some sort of brain-melting disorder equivalent to stepping a few million years down the evolutionary ladder, and then decided that no one else had ever opened a shop selling baby stuff, designed a range of baby clothes, invented a new flavour of baby food, thought of a new way of washing nappies (or disposing of nappies), or any number of other baby-related things.

And don’t think it’s just the mothers. When I was in the rat race, you’d go to someone’s cubicle or office and wonder what the hell visitors thought when they saw all the crap on display. Painted egg boxes, coloured stones, crumpled sheets of paper with random splodges of gaudy watercolour paint all over it, photographs… People pretended to be interested – let’s face it, the only ones who could sincerely admire it would be the ones with the same degenerative brain conditions – but it was a mess. So much of a mess, in fact, that if the visitor was high-ranking and internal (i.e. likely to be able to advance the career of the person in question) all the crap would be hidden away.

But I digress. The author of that letter has a point. Those signs are not put there for the original purpose of safety. They can’t be, given how those displaying them often drive. They ARE put there to say “we’ve got a baby”!

Sticking a “baby on board” sign in the car when you have a baby – and converting it to a “little princess” or “cheeky monkey” sign when they’re old enough – is a basic routine in parenthood. It means nothing.

Texting and Surfing Whilst Driving

The Boston Globe reports that 19 percent of drivers admit to carrying out internet-related activities whilst driving.

…including:

  • Finding/reading driving directions
  • Reading e-mail
  • Composing/sending e-mail (texting)
  • Reading/scanning sites such as Facebook and Twitter
  • Looking up specific information

Many said they engage in these activities when stopped in traffic or at red lights as well as when driving alone or on long trips on interstates.

The article says that 40 percent of Americans own a smartphone – so that means they must have around 25 million people surfing as they drive!

Don’t think it is only an American problem. It is already acknowledged that people use Facebook and Twitter whilst driving here in the UK. I’ve reported on more than one occasion previously about seeing people texting whilst driving. I’ve pointed out at least three times to pupils this week alone – it really is a growing menace.

Tests on Canada’s Older Drivers “Wrong”

An interesting story in The Vancouver Sun claims that tests used to assess older drivers’ fitness to keep their licences are flawed. The same story is covered in News 1130.

Psychology Professor Allison Sekuler of McMaster University says:

…the doctor’s office is a setting with no need to make instant decisions, to see through “clutter,” or to concentrate on one thing and still notice a pedestrian stepping off the curb.

But she then goes on to claim that old people can be taught to multi-task as well as teenagers, thus cancelling out part of what she initially said.

Some of them might, but not all of them. And far fewer overall than in the teenage group.

And if it were that easy, older drivers wouldn’t be getting in an age-related tangle in the first place.

A Little Knowledge…

How about this letter to the Wirral Globe?

HOW do some people get their driving licence?

I live near Birkenhead town centre, and the amount of times I am about to cross at a pelican crossing when the traffic lights go to flashing amber and drivers think they have the right to drive straight at you.

And try waiting at a zebra crossing – you could wait there all day and no-one would have the courtesy to stop for you.

What do others think?

Maybe he should read the Highway Code – and be a little clearer on what he is actually doing (I don’t see how you can be “about to cross” and have people driving “straight at you” unless they’re going on the pavement!).

From the driver’s point of view, the HC says:

196

Signal-controlled crossings

Pelican crossings. These are signal-controlled crossings where flashing amber follows the red ‘Stop’ light. You MUST stop when the red light shows. When the amber light is flashing, you MUST give way to any pedestrians on the crossing. If the amber light is flashing and there are no pedestrians on the crossing, you may proceed with caution.


[Laws ZPPPCRGD regs 23 & 26 & RTRA sect 25(5)]

Note the parts I’ve underlined. Now look at what the HC says from the pedestrian’s point of view:

22

Pelican crossings. These are signal-controlled crossings operated by pedestrians. Push the control button to activate the traffic signals. When the red figure shows, do not cross. When a steady green figure shows, check the traffic has stopped then cross with care. When the green figure begins to flash you should not start to cross. If you have already started you should have time to finish crossing safely .
 

Again, note the part I’ve underlined.

The flashing green man (for the pedestrian) comes on slightly before the flashing amber (for the road user). In an ideal world, everyone would know the rules and follow them rigidly.

Since we don’t live in a perfect world, a motorist who starts to move when the flashing amber comes on frequently has to deal with pedestrians who think that the mere presence of a crossing means they can cross whenever they feel like it.

Perhaps the guy who wrote this letter illustrates clearly why there are so many pedestrians around who behave like that?

Elderly Woman Totals Car in Milwaukee

This story in the Daily Mail makes interesting reading.

The Milwaukee woman is believed by police to have pressed the gas pedal instead of the brake, and the car shot across 6 lanes of busy traffic and rammed into the window of a house opposite. Three quarters of the car ended up inside the house, which was fortunately unoccupied at the time.

There’s an interesting comment by a British ex-pat, living in the USA. He says:

The plague of the elderly driver is very common here in the USA. Its strange because at home in England you don’t see many crumblies behind the wheel. Here they are everywhere and can always be counted on to drive the largest cars available.

I’m not sure what planet he’s on, but one can only assume that when he says you don’t see many old people behind the wheel over here he is simply talking in comparitive terms.

The case is ongoing and no final conclusions about the actual cause have yet been drawn by police.

The issue of older drivers and road safety seems to be a big topic in the US at the moment. Several stories have cropped up recently.

Isle of Man to Introduce HPT

The Isle of ManI found this story on Manx Radio.

From April this year, those sitting the theory test in IOM will have to do a computerised section on spotting hazards. The legislation has yet to be approved by Tynwald – that’s the IOM Parliament – but April isn’t far away, so this looks like it is a long way towards being implemented.

The test would be administered by the Department of Education and Children.

The HPT (Hazard Perception Test) was not popular over here, though personally I never had a problem with it and I still don’t. It’s definitely better than nothing at all, and it makes people think. In fact, most of the moaning came from people who couldn’t do it – which doesn’t automatically make it wrong, does it?

Louth Driving Test & Leisure Centre

Louth, LincolnshireThis report in the Louth Leader online newspaper says that the local test centre could be re-opened in an office in the local leisure centre.

I looked up the story and discovered that Louth was scheduled to close in January this year. The nearest alternative test centre was 17 miles away at Grimsby. Typically, a load of ADIs opposed it and came up with some ridiculous estimates of how much extra it would cost pupils to take their tests there – something like their life savings, an extra 20 hours of lessons (that one is a real claim, by the way), and several body organs. These claims were grossly exaggerated, as usual – particularly the one about how many extra hours it would take.

Naturally, someone in local government is anxious to make a name for themselves and is fighting the corner. Cllr Pauline Watson is even offering to pay the rent on the room at the leisure centre for a year – a gesture which I’m certain isn’t intended to try and belittle the DSA.

I wonder if Cllr Watson has considered the extra risks associated with having learners driving around a leisure centre, where I would imagine there are kids? The Meridian centre has a swimming pool, a leisure pool with flume, and child care facilities (i.e. it’s a creche) – amongst other things. If it’s anywhere near the same as the leisure centres around here, there will be kids everywhere.

And Cllr Watson wants driving school cars hanging around?

The best part is that these ADIs have said:

It is standard practice to have lessons on the roads used by test centres

Actually, it might be common  practice, but it is far from being standard. If people can drive – if they’re taught properly – they don’t need to spend much time around the test centre at all.

The idea of driving school cars messing about in a leisure centre car park – it’s “standard practice”, remember – makes your toes curl! These people don’t mess about, you know. There would be so many of them crawling over the place that there wouldn’t be anywhere for the centre users to park.

Even if Cllr Watson hasn’t considered this, I would be very surprised if the DSA didn’t either.

Imitation – The Sincerest Form Of Flattery

I did a trackback using my web traffic data and found a link on someone’s blog (who links to this one) to another blog.

Bart Simpson - PlagiarismNow, I would hope that this blog has maybe inspired a few other people to set one up of their own - whatever walks of life they might come from. But I was a bit surprised to find one which has almost the same name as mine, and which seemed to draw on some of my articles for its own content. It even has a similar tagline.

I wonder if I should be flattered or offended?

I think I’ll go with the first one. After all, it might just be a complete coincidence – there are bound to be common topics in this business.

On the subject of plagiarism though, I once went round to a friends house to fix his son’s computer. I had to wait while the lad printed off his homework – it was the entire Wikipedia page about Shakespeare. The worrying thing is that he probably got an A for it.

As for web forums, people seem to think that cut-and-paste or just linking to articles somehow reflects on their own knowledge and intelligence. Weeeell… it does… because in most cases - if you trouble to follow the link and digest the content (or find the full article they cut-and-pasted from) - you inevitably find that they simply haven’t understood what they’ve posted or linked to. In many cases, they clearly haven’t even read it, let alone understood it.

Plagiarism, simple copying, or verbatim answers often provide a useful insight into what – and how - people think.

IQ Test Required To Get A Driving Licence?

I think this might be a little tongue-in-cheek judging from some of the stories on there [link removed, as now dead], but wouldn’t it be good if it were true and spread over to the UK?

In an effort to make driving less of a headache, the State of Colorado passed a law requiring an IQ exam as part of the driving test.

In order to obtain a drivers license in the State of Colorado, and IQ of at least 120 is required.

“We find that many traffic incidents and traffic jams are caused by sheer stupidity,” said El Paso County Sherriff Terry Maketa.

Lawmakers decided that if there were fewer stupid people on the road, there would be fewer stupidity-related incidents.

“I just want to be able to go skiing without hitting traffic caused by idiots who don’t know how to drive,” commented Representative Doug Lamborn.

It made me smile.

What IQ is required to get a driving licence?

Someone found the blog on that term (the spelling suggests it was an American query). Unfortunately, anything down to 0 (zero) is sufficient from what I’ve seen in the UK.

In America, I think negative numbers are allowed. And in some states, as long as you carry a spare pack of Pampers (diapers) in the boot (trunk) age isn’t a restriction, either.

Women’s Motor Insurance To Rise In 2012

The Sun has its own unique angle on the story reported below. Apparently, girls are driven crazy by the new insurance laws.

Young women drivers face paying up to £4,300 more a year to cover their cars following the ruling

It says. Well, you’ve got to take the rough with the smooth. If you want equal pay – irrespective of whether or not you have equal skills – you’ve got to expect equal bills and expenses, too.

Women under 26, who are considered ‘safer’ drivers by insurance companies than their male counterparts will have their rates hitched 25 per cent by 12 December 2012.

I’ll repeat what I said in the last post on this topic: women drivers have accidents .

Once and for all, let’s stop pretending women are perfect out there on the roads. They make mistakes – different ones to men due to their biological spatial awareness problems – and they cause problems on the roads.

On my way to a lesson today a female driver stopped abruptly in the middle of a junction on a 40mph road in free-moving traffic – completely free-moving – to flash a white van turning right (he was waiting in the designated right turn lane). It forced me to both brake to a stop in front of the white line and worry that the lights would change and trigger the camera. She hadn’t a clue what was going on behind her. The white van had no right of way whatsoever, but she gave it to him unnecessarily and caused potentially serious problems,

Then this afternoon on a roundabout, a woman driver did what bad drivers do and remained in the right hand lane as long as she could (all along a long boulevard) to turn right, and then swung across into the other lane (also going right) at the last moment. She, too, hadn’t a clue what was going on in that lane or behind her. She should have stayed in lane and merged – not try to slam into other road users.

In both cases, the only reason an accident didn’t happen was the other driver – in this case, me.

The point here is not that only women do this. The point is that women do it as well, so stop bleating about this perfectly sensible change to the insurance laws. The only reason women have had it so good for so long is as a result of positive discrimination designed to swing the scales away from men. The problem was, the scales swung too far – now they’re swinging back a little.